3.0 -> 3.5 changes

[Crissa]

Well, think about how difficult it is to swing a daikatana, and yet, those were used against mounted foes and from mounted position.

As a certain point, the wielder may not be holding it in both hands, but they are certainly using both hands to control it.

-Crissa

stupid typo

[souran]

The Katana as a weapon derives its power from its cutting edge. Yes, you can stab people with it, but thats not what you normally try to do with it. When you practice kendo you don't go around trying to poke people. you try to make contact with the cutting edge of the blade. (As a note, this also means a matter of style you square your shoulders more to your opponent inoder to have more upper body agility.

With a rapier you are going to try and stick it into something important like the liver or a kidney. Yes, it has sharp edges, this helps it when you are pushing it into the soft flesh of the unlucky bastard at the other end. You can even cut shit with it, but its not what you are really trying to do. The rapier and the decendant weapons are thusting swords that rely on the lunge and basically the whole sword is desined to let you impart a lot of force into the tip of the blade.


These are radically different styles. I really don't think that you could ever classify them under the same weapon.

Also, this ignores the crux of the arguement. When judging eagle says "of course there are two handed rapiers! Ever heard of Katanas!" it still doesn't fix the logic of having small creatures wield medium weapons in two hands.because when you hold a rapier two-handed it is still nothing like a katana

Assuming that a human builds the rapier then we can assume it would like like the picture of the rapier frank presented - a double edged thrusting sword designed for use in one hand. Now when the halfling wields it he uses it as a katana, a single edged slashing sword designed for one or two handed use.

Frank and JE can find all the similarties in they want. Holding your rapier in two hands simply does not make it work like a katana. Humans and hafling rapiers would STILL not be interchangable because human rapiers would be rapiers and halfling rapiers would be katanas. But yes the would both be the same size.

Now honestly, D&D long ago lost any sort of real historical accuracy surrounding its weapons.

"Long Sword" in european fight books is a term that is applied exclusively to two handed swords. Yet in D&D it refers to dozens of styles of one handed arming swords, often focusing on double edged cruciform swords decended from the spatha. This category is so big and covers so many different kinds of swords that making categories for "knife swords" to cover the falchion, cutlass, saber, kopesh scimitar and "agility swords" to cover rapier, epee, katana, etc. would be more in line with the terms the game gives us. On the other hand picking a "damage type" for these mega groups would be a pain in the ass.

The easiest way to do magic weapons is just have them shrink to fit. However, more likley your game has a ruleset that does either the 3.0 or the 3.5 method. Again as this thread shows people will go to extra ordinary lengths to justify the logic of the system they like and will be mentall unable to accept the logical justifications for the other sytem.

The whole "katana = two handed rapier" is example of this. The heavy lance is based on the european knights "tuck lance" designed to be "tucked" under the arm. Using this weapon two handed on horseback makes NO SENSE. Posting pictures of people using various weapons two handed on horseback is irrelevant because a humans longsword is not actually a haflings horse great-sword. If such weapons exist they will have specialzed elements for their fighting enviroment that won't exist on the weapon for the larger person.

That said, there are LOTS of weapons for which this abstraction makes LOTS of sense. Axes, maces, spears, clubs, hell, even many kinds of swords this would be fine (for instance saying a humans wakazashi is a haflings Katana is really dead on). On the hand somebody will probably respond that there is a certain kind of axe or mace, or spear or club that cannot be just made bigger or smaller and retain its effectiveness.

So you must pick an abstration, and I would say that the "best" abstraction is the one that doesn't make you pull out your hair.

[CatharzGodfoot]

You've convinced me.

[Username17]

Edit: As I understand it, those are tachi rather than daikatana. But still used in 2 hands. From horseback.

-Username17

[K]

The dumbest part of this argument is the fact that while some weapons are designed for a purpose, you can still fight in a different style with weapons not designed for that and not suffer in the slightest.

It's not even hard. Dueling sabers are not so different from katanas that you need to switch styles since they have the same-ish weight, one cutting edge and a point.

Heck, the two-handed swords that people are talking about are basically metal clubs with a token edge to spread tetanus.

DnD just loves granularity because Gygax loved him some medieval weapon history books, and it makes similar fighters feel special. Fighting is mostly about speed and strength, and skill and weapon choice don't matter much.

[Kaelik]

The dumbest part of this argument is the fact that while some weapons are designed for a purpose, you can still fight in a different style with weapons not designed for that and not suffer in the slightest.

This +1000.

If you hand me a fucking Katana, I will use it like a Rapier. And if you hand me a Foil I will use it like an epee. And if you hand me a broadsword, I will use it like a rapier, because the only things I can do are Rapier and Epee, and since that's both cutting and stabbing, I can probably manage just fine with most things.

[souran]

The dumbest part of this argument is the fact that while some weapons are designed for a purpose, you can still fight in a different style with weapons not designed for that and not suffer in the slightest.

I have numerous technical disagreements to this. Basically, using a weapon incorrectly against a person who knows what they are doing with said weapon will get you killed. Weapons have methods, and while certain aspects of those methods can be universalized, not all of them can.

It's not even hard. Dueling sabers are not so different from katanas that you need to switch styles since they have the same-ish weight, one cutting edge and a point.

These weapons have different grips, different cutting edges (the last 1/6th of the reverse of a saber is cutting edge as well so that you can counterattack from a low stong side parry without rotating the wrist), different stances, and different defensive positions. Their theory of violence and economy of motion are really different.

There are things from kendo that can really improve your fencing, their are fencing techniques that can add a lot of suprise to your kendo.
However, assuming you only had the sword you didn't know on hand, you are probably better going with what you know. Hell it might even work against a person who is not as fast or not as konwledgeable as you are.

So lets say we accept wholesale the premise that a person could use a katana as a saber and "not suffer in the slightest" The problem is you still have a whole OTHER logical proof to present that goes the other way:

Effectively now you have to prove that a saber held in 2 hands works just as well as a katana and causes the user to not suffer in the slightest.

Because until you show that all you have proven is that a human could use a haflings katana as an impromptu saber. Otherwise we still have haflings making katanas and humans making sabers.

Heck, the two-handed swords that people are talking about are basically metal clubs with a token edge to spread tetanus.

This is simply factually false for the eastern two-handed swords people are discussing. Hell, this meme really only applies to reniasannse two handed swords used for defeating pollarm formations. Regardless it ignores ring guards, blade composition, and etc.

So yes, if we ignore a bunch of facts we can fold all the two handed swords together and say if you know one you know them all.

Here is the thing, for a game like D&D ignoring these facts is not only fine its probably preferable. Hell, we want people to use two handed swords, and we want them to use them on dragons. A dragon =/= a swiss pike hedge. So having "great sword" instead of "flamberge" is probably a really awesome idea.

DnD just loves granularity because Gygax loved him some medieval weapon history books, and it makes similar fighters feel special.

D&D cannot decide if it wants to be history or hollywood. Half the D&D weapons don't work. It includes a huge selection of polearms that were invtented to make it easy to convert conscripted farmers into piss poor soldiers by sticking farm impliments on long sticks. These weapons were both ineffective and historically stupid, but they had cool names in the book Gygax used to put together the weapon list.

Also who knows maybe somebody thinks its totally cool to fight with a tree-saw attached to a 6 foot stick.

Fuck, the game uses the term "great sword" for two handed swords and "long sword" for one handed swords and in period fight books those two terms mean almost exactly the opposite. "Great Swords" usually mean the bastard sword or hand and a half sword while long sword is damn near universally two handed swords. When they wanted to talk about those long one handed slashy thingies they just used the term "sword"

Fighting is mostly about speed and strength, and skill and weapon choice don't matter much.

Weapon choice is about million times more important than it is in D&D, and thats a good thing. Historically, showing up with the wrong weapons usually means you end up dead. Every edge you can get is vital. We probably don't want people arming themselves like caterphacts (byzantine knights who armed themselves with sword, axe, mace, lance, horse bow, and thrown spear) to go dungeon diving. We want them to Connan up and grab a sword and go "enough talk" and start kicking ass.

[RobbyPants]

On the topic of spell changes, I know Sleep has seen changes all the way since 2E. It used to affect 2d4 HD, no save. In 3E, they added the will save (and I think it was still 2d4 HD). In 3.5, it was set at 4 HD and the casting time was set to an entire round (not full round action).

The changes are understandable in that Sleep was a great go-to spell in 2E. Although the casting time increase from 3E -> 3.5 just made Color Spray more attractive.

[souran]

If you hand me a fucking Katana, I will use it like a Rapier. And if you hand me a Foil I will use it like an epee. And if you hand me a broadsword, I will use it like a rapier, because the only things I can do are Rapier and Epee, and since that's both cutting and stabbing, I can probably manage just fine with most things.

I would agree that if what you know how to use are the rapier and the epee then trying to use the Katana that way is probably in your best interest.

Using what you KNOW is probably better than flailing about like an idiot.

However, you really belive that you would be able to "manage just fine with most things?"

Would one of those things be fighitng people who know what the fuck they are doing with katana's because if it is I think you are a dead man.

Hell, you know how to fence with two weapons and you never figured out that fencing people who are using a weapon that they don't know and falling back to the skills they do are easy targets?

When I fence saber I love going against the foil and epee guys because they don't know where to hold their arms to prevent me from striking the elbow. Thats a hard target to hit with a thrusting sword and its a gravy shot with the saber.

Similarly, you know epee, don't you like facing guys who think they can do epee because they do foil? feinting high and then striking near the legs is how you teach a person that the weapons/rules are different in the first place.

I think we have very different definitions of "managing just fine" mine involves not getting beat/killed.

[Kaelik]

Manage just fine =/= be the greatest in the universe.

I might lose to really good Katana whatevers. But um... duh. I could manage just fine in that I could take a Katana, use it as a rapier and actually fucking do well enough.

If I try to use a motherfucking flail, I will get my ass handed to me by someone with no weapons at all while I accidentally kill myself.

As for foil/epee vs saber/epee.

Yeah, that's the rules of a game, and not really the same thing. Foil is trained to ignore their feat, and that's fine, because no one will hit their feat, but if we are talking about real combat, people will learn to fight styles that aren't their own weapon, so a thrust weapon will watch their own elbows, and a foil user will keep their feet ready to move.

[souran]

Manage just fine =/= be the greatest in the universe.

I might lose to really good Katana whatevers. But um... duh. I could manage just fine in that I could take a Katana, use it as a rapier and actually fucking do well enough.

If I try to use a motherfucking flail, I will get my ass handed to me by someone with no weapons at all while I accidentally kill myself.

Ok, so who are you going to fight and be good enough? You are using a katana as a saber and WHO ARE YOU THEN GOING to FIGHT?

Do you really want to be using the katana as a saber and going up agains the saber trained guys? Or the Katana trained guys?

Lets throw it into D&D: You know how to use a saber but not a katana. You are going to fight a DRAGON. Are you saying that you would be willing to just "make do" with the defeintively not a saber katana because you will do "well enough!"

You would be dinner is what you would be.

Yeah, that's the rules of a game, and not really the same thing. Foil is trained to ignore their feat, and that's fine, because no one will hit their feat, but if we are talking about real combat, people will learn to fight styles that aren't their own weapon, so a thrust weapon will watch their own elbows, and a foil user will keep their feet ready to move.

The foil/epee example is not good. However, the saber/epee one is dead on. I ALWAYS know when doing saber if the person is more comfortable with a thrusting sword than the saber because they will hold the weapon just differently enough to make strikes against the under arm or elbow easy. This sort of thing, assuming we were actually attempting to kill each other would be FUCKING VITAL. If you know a weapon system switching weapons to one that might just bearly make do is a bad choice.

People in real combat have REAL preferences. They have weapons they know and others they don't. You join they don't just hand out machine guns to every 5th guy. You have to learn to use your equipment.

Now going back to D&D we do have a number of differances worth examinging. Not the least of which is Adventurers probablly have a lot more time to practice their martial skills than we do. If you make your living putting down vampires and dragons you probably figured it was worthwhile to learn several weapons.



You claim you would use a katana as a rapier because that is the weapon you know. While that is not an illogical sentiment it is not a solution to any of these issue in this thread

A) A hafling using a human rapier in two hands is silly because using a rapier in two hands would be ineffective.
B) What does a 2 handed rapier look like, and how interchangable would it be with a one "standard" rapier in a larger being?
C) That rapiers and Katanas are interchangable weapons with the later being the defacto two handed version of the first.
E) Why can't a hafling build a hafling sized rapier?

Now, even though the katana is cutting sword swith a substantially larger pommel than a rapier and its balance is totally different, I will suppose that a human could use a haflings katana as a rapier.

Now we STILL need a proof that it works the other way. That a rapier can double as a Katana by a small person (say a child) when held in two hands. Hell, just find me the kendo person who will say that a rapier is suitable double for the katana under most circumstances. I would actually pay money to see somebody perform iajustsu with a rapier.


Find me that and I will say that the small creatures make small versions of weapons style of weapon sizing is illogical and only the "all weapons have a fixed size" arguement makes sense.

[RobbyPants]

Wow, this is getting pathetic.

[Username17]

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Bastard Sword" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Macuahuitl deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine macuahuitl in Tenochtitlan for two goats and three sacks of cacao beans (that's about $6,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my macuahuitl.
Aztec smiths spend weeks working on a single macuahuitl and sharpen the edges up to a dozen times to produce the finest weapons known to mankind.
Macuahuitl are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter to. Anything a longsword can cut through, a macuahuitl can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a macuahuitl could easily bisect a Spanish conquistador wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Central America? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Aztecs and their macuahuitl of destruction. Even in the sixteenth century, Spanish explorers targeted the macuahuitl-wielding Aztecs with smallpox-infected blankets first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Macuahuitl are simply the best swords that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for macuahuitl:
(One-Handed Exotic Weapon) 1d12 Damage 19-20 x4 Crit +2 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon) 2d10 Damage 17-20 x4 Crit +5 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of macuahuitl in real life, don't you think?
tl;dr = Macuahuitl need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.

[TOZ]

Too much realism in my fantasy bullshit.

[souran]

All I want to know is do haflings make their own Macuahuitl or do we just let them wield a rapier two handed because Macuahuitl are identical to rapiers when held in two hands.

Also, if I have monkey grip can I duel wield a storm giants short Macuahuitl?

[CatharzGodfoot]

We probably don't want people arming themselves like caterphacts (byzantine knights who armed themselves with sword, axe, mace, lance, horse bow, and thrown spear) to go dungeon diving. We want them to Connan up and grab a sword and go "enough talk" and start kicking ass.

Actually, we probably do. This is D&D; some characters should look like this:


...and some of them should look like this:

[K]

I think we have very different definitions of "managing just fine" mine involves not getting beat/killed.

You seem to have confused fencing with fighting.

Fencing is mostly about skill because the rules imposed on it minimize strength and speed.

Fighting involves things like kicking people in the nuts as a valid combat tactic regardless of what weapon you have in your hand. I mean, I used to be in a fencing club with an actual Olympic fencer and that guy "died" all the time in informal "battles" we'd do for fun because I'd sidestep and stab him in the side. He couldn't wrap his head around the fact that we weren't on a strip.

So sure, fencing with the wrong weapon is fail, but fighting is wonderfully flexible when it comes to adopting styles to dissimilar weapons. For more detail, watch the scene in Red Sonja where Bridget Neilson explains this to the Prince of Habluck.

[Jilocasin]

Too much realism in my fantasy bullshit.

Yes. A million times yes.

That said, the kinds of weapons that people would be using against each other in a fantasy universe are probably not what dnd players typically assume they're using. If you go with the assumption that the similar sized races stick to interacting most of the time with other similar sized races then maybe you get some battles resembling battles that have actually happened. However, once you throw adventurers into the mix it all breaks down and souran, your A B C E concerns don't matter in the slightest. Adventurers are expected to do battle with everything ranging from creatures six inches tall to colossal creatures weighing more than 125 tons. A medium sized creature is expected, within the dnd universe, to be able to hit said six inch creature with a big ass warhammer and to be able to do damage to a 125 ton behemoth with a dagger. Even wondering if using a rapier two-handed makes any kind of sense is absolutely useless because you aren't going to be effective or ineffective with it based on anything applicable to our reality. You're going to make it work because adventurers are [awesome] and/or the rapier is magic. If you aren't an adventurer well, halflings are going to be using neurotoxins against giants and giants are going to be using nets against gnomes.

[Crissa]

Apparently souran never saw Zorro.

-Crissa

[souran]

I think we have very different definitions of "managing just fine" mine involves not getting beat/killed.

You seem to have confused fencing with fighting.

Fencing is mostly about skill because the rules imposed on it minimize strength and speed.

Nope skilled people beat unskilled people. That is fact. Infact, skill is SO MUCH BETTER than "intuition" that renasiance nobles routinely bested veteran soldiers with years of "battlefield" experience in one on one combat because they had superior training in the form of the best fencing masters in the world. Whats more, these masters also usually tought wrestling, knife fighting, and other methods making sure that you win once you get in close.

Fighting involves things like kicking people in the nuts as a valid combat tactic regardless of what weapon you have in your hand. I mean, I used to be in a fencing club with an actual Olympic fencer and that guy "died" all the time in informal "battles" we'd do for fun because I'd sidestep and stab him in the side. He couldn't wrap his head around the fact that we weren't on a strip.

I have also done this and there are several things you are conviently ignoring. First the "strip" is based on the idea that when facing a single individual you can pretty much manuver to keep yourself and your weapon in line. If you do some historical fencing there is a sidestep designed to follow exactly such a move. What you are forgetting is that fencing IS fighting. Its a system for killing people. Now modern sport fencing has dropped a lot of the less pleasant elements in favor of creating a game. However, the techniques are not lost. We have the fight books. We know that cor-a-cor fencing stoppage would have been where your instructor told you switch to wrestling. I saw an illustration in one fight book on the "proper" way to poke somebody in the eye with an index finger.

So sure, fencing with the wrong weapon is fail, but fighting is wonderfully flexible when it comes to adopting styles to dissimilar weapons. For more detail, watch the scene in Red Sonja where Bridget Neilson explains this to the Prince of Habluck.

Except that the other people are trying to kill you and they will mostly likely have an idea of how to do that most effectively with their weapons.

Instead of quoting Red Sonja you might try and learn from something that is useful like Musashi's book of 5 rings

""Know your enemy, know his sword."

"The true science of martial arts means practicing them in such a way that they will be useful at any time, and to teach them in such a way that they will be useful in all things."

"Know the smallest things and the biggest things, the shallowest things and the deepest things. As if it were a straight road mapped out on the ground ... These things cannot be explained in detail. From one thing, know ten thousand things. When you attain the Way of strategy there will not be one thing you cannot see. You must study hard. "

Musashi also has famous section in his text on "holding down the pillow" which has to do with how old men beat young men many years their junior without expending any effort. He argues that only experience and skill are better than speed because they let you eliminate waste. A credible swordsman does not make flashy moves or strike and pound away because he thinks he can. A swordsman moves to create the opportunity to strike, which is the essential element of taking up the sword.

Mushashi has FURTHER text wherein he describes that a warrior must learn all the weapons they can. Additinally, there should be no favoratism amoung these weapons. Loving one weapon to much is the same as being unskilled in that weapon. You must know these weapons for two fold reasons, first so that you are never disarmed. Mushasi says don't be unpreapapred. Secondly he pulls the "know your enemy, know his sword" quote to explain that only by knowing the enemies own techniques you know where your weapon is strong and weak against your enemy.

It may just be me but I will take musashi over red sonja any day.

[Username17]

That is fact. Infact, skill is SO MUCH BETTER than "intuition" that renasiance nobles routinely bested veteran soldiers with years of "battlefield" experience in one on one combat because they had superior training in the form of the best fencing masters in the world.

Care to pick an example that isn't stupid?

During that time period, the nobility got "food" while soldiers did not. Not only were nobles 20 centimeters taller than low born soldiers, but they had more muscle, better teeth, and less weeping sores.

Nobles vs. lowborn soldiers doesn't say shit about intuition vs. skill. It says that all things being equal that the sword fight goes to the bigger, stronger man. Duh!

-Username17

[souran]

That said, the kinds of weapons that people would be using against each other in a fantasy universe are probably not what dnd players typically assume they're using. If you go with the assumption that the similar sized races stick to interacting most of the time with other similar sized races then maybe you get some battles resembling battles that have actually happened. However, once you throw adventurers into the mix it all breaks down and souran, your A B C E concerns don't matter in the slightest. Adventurers are expected to do battle with everything ranging from creatures six inches tall to colossal creatures weighing more than 125 tons. A medium sized creature is expected, within the dnd universe, to be able to hit said six inch creature with a big ass warhammer and to be able to do damage to a 125 ton behemoth with a dagger. Even wondering if using a rapier two-handed makes any kind of sense is absolutely useless because you aren't going to be effective or ineffective with it based on anything applicable to our reality. You're going to make it work because adventurers are [awesome] and/or the rapier is magic. If you aren't an adventurer well, halflings are going to be using neurotoxins against giants and giants are going to be using nets against gnomes.

So what you are arguing is that the weapon names are meaningless that weapons developed in a D&D reality would be so different from reality as to make attaching real world names pointless?

I can buy that arguement. The solution you want is "I DON'T FUCKING CARE WHAT WEAPONS HAFLINGS USE" In that case just have every weapon resize to fit the wielder. All weapons use the same damage codes. That is also cool because it doesn't punish people for playing small characters.

Note that this is not what 3.0 does though. A 3.0 hafling rogue BY RULE can never wield a rapier and a dagger. You cannot be hafling zorro because rapier + whip is beyond your species. And you know what, if those are the rules for your game thats FINE. Honestly, nobody gives a shit.

However, there are people who think that a hafling ought to be able to build himself a fucking rapier to use in one god damn hand. Infact, a hafling might want an appropriatly sized arsenal that includes 1 of every weapon in the fucking game! So having a set of rules whereby the weapons can get smaller so that they are appropriate to the wielder might make sense to about half the people who play rpgs.

Now here is the amazing kicker: I don't even like the second system more than the first system. I just don't think that the second system is some nighmarish illigitmate travesty foisted on the D&D playing world out spite.

And from that we have 4 pages of thread where people have tried to PROVE that the second system is illigitmate by trying to show that if somehow a two handed rapier exists then the second system is addressing a non existant complaint and so is just stupid.

So we get this rapiers are katanas and sabers and katanas are interchangable.

These are weapons developed at different times, using different constuction methods and with totally differnt schools of use behind them.

And yet FRANK "LOGISTICSANDDRAGONS IS SUPER IMPORTANT" TROLLMAN is arguing that they are close enough for government work because he cannot stand the second system!

This isn't even about these rules themselves its about the pyscology of how hatred of a particular rule can cause people to be totally irrational

[souran]

That is fact. Infact, skill is SO MUCH BETTER than "intuition" that renasiance nobles routinely bested veteran soldiers with years of "battlefield" experience in one on one combat because they had superior training in the form of the best fencing masters in the world.

Care to pick an example that isn't stupid?

During that time period, the nobility got "food" while soldiers did not. Not only were nobles 20 centimeters taller than low born soldiers, but they had more muscle, better teeth, and less weeping sores.

Nobles vs. lowborn soldiers doesn't say shit about intuition vs. skill. It says that all things being equal that the sword fight goes to the bigger, stronger man. Duh!

-Username17

Fine, finish reading the whole above post - including the part about musashi's discussion of how old swordsmen usually make fools of young ones.

[K]

That is fact. Infact, skill is SO MUCH BETTER than "intuition" that renasiance nobles routinely bested veteran soldiers with years of "battlefield" experience in one on one combat because they had superior training in the form of the best fencing masters in the world.

Care to pick an example that isn't stupid?

During that time period, the nobility got "food" while soldiers did not. Not only were nobles 20 centimeters taller than low born soldiers, but they had more muscle, better teeth, and less weeping sores.

Nobles vs. lowborn soldiers doesn't say shit about intuition vs. skill. It says that all things being equal that the sword fight goes to the bigger, stronger man. Duh!

-Username17

Fine, finish reading the whole above post - including the part about musashi's discussion of how old swordsmen usually make fools of young ones.

You do know that in the 1600s the average lifespan was between 35 and 45? So your "old swordsman" is probably in peak physical condition.

And yeh, nobles were taller and better fed than peasants, and had the free time to actually exercise. Around 50-100 pounds of muscle is going to win you quite a few fights.

This is why the legendary peasant warriors were usually blacksmiths; strength-building exercise + enough income for an adequate diet = awesome swordsman.

As for Musashi.... he made his living setting up schools and training warriors, so of course he'd say that skill as the most important thing for a warrior. If he admitted it came down to strength and speed and good diet and only a little skill, he'd have starved to death.

And as an additional note, you should remember that his most famous duel was won with an oar. I'm sure he would find your arguments silly.

[TheWorid]

And as an additional note, you should remember that his most famous duel was won with an oar. I'm sure he would find your arguments silly.

This, among other things, is why I think that differentiating between swords as much as this thread seems to be trying to do is both pointless and not even actually realistic.